Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 809–812 | Cite as

Some Opinions on the Review Process of Research Papers Destined for Publication

Opinion
  • 187 Downloads

Abstract

The current paper discusses the peer review process in journals that publish research papers purveying new science and understandings (scientific journals). Different aspects of peer review including the selection of reviewers, the review process and the decision policy of editor are discussed in details. Here, the pros and cons of different conventional methods of review processes are mentioned. Finally, a suggestion is presented for the review process of scientific papers.

Keywords

Review strategy Scientific journals Biased review Peer review process Impact factor 

References

  1. Atkinson, M. (2001). Peer review culture. Science and Engineering Ethics, 7(2), 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin, W., & Seto, B. (1997). Peer review: Selecting the best science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(1), 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Meadows, A. J. (1974). Communication in science. London, UK: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  5. Meadows, A. J. (1998). Communicating research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Oleinik, A. (2014). Conflict(s) of interest in peer review: Its origins and possible solutions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(1), 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Plunk, V. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342, 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Rowland, F. (2002). The peer-review process. Learned Publishing, 15(4), 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Spier, R. (2002a). Peer review and innovation. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(1), 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Spier, R. (2002b). The history of the peer-review process. Trends in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Vijh, A. K. (1996). Reflections on peer review practices in committees selecting laureates for prestigious awards and prizes: Some relevant and irrelevant criteria. Science and Engineering Ethics, 2(4), 389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Wilson, J. R. (2002). Responsible authorship and peer review. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Young Researchers and Elite Club, Mashhad BranchIslamic Azad UniversityMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations